World War Z Review

This has been a weird summer at the movies.  Just take a look at what's out now.  Weirdos with superpowers.  "Monsters University."  Bald dudes with no necks leaping out of speeding cars.  Alan from "The Hangover Part III".  Bank robbing magicians.  Emotionless spacemen with pointy ears.  An M. Night Shyamalan movie.

Now we have a movie with Brad Pitt fighting zombies.  What a strange world we live in.

"World War Z" is based on the novel of the same name by Max Brooks (son of Mel).  I consider the book to be one of the all-time greatest zombie-themed works of art, right up there with George A. Romero's Living Dead trilogy, "Resident Evil" (the games), "The Walking Dead", "Shaun of the Dead" and "Dead Alive", among others.

Actually, forget all of that.  The movie has next to nothing to do with the book.  Comparisons between the book and the film are practically unwarranted.  It is "World War Z" in name only.

This "World War Z" is a global pandemic thriller not unlike "Outbreak".  Brad Pitt plays Kurt Cobain, an ex-United Nations aid worker turned family man who's brought back into the fold when a rapidly spreading zombie virus threatens the entire world with stinky deadness.  Soon he's hopping across the globe, in search of the source of the virus, hoping a cure can be found in time.

Okay, he's not playing Kurt Cobain.  I believe his character's name is Gerry.  But he looks like Kurt Cobain.

It's not a terrible movie.  It's watchable, with some pretty good parts, but it's very slight and forgettable, and very, very tampered with.  It's like a person who's undergone so much unecessary plastic surgery that the original person underneath has been almost completely lost beneath the storebought genericness.  The plastic surgery metaphor is not inaccurate.  This movie has a long, tortured production history, with lots of studio tampering to boot (from Paramount Pictures - the new kings of filmmaking interference).  No less than 26(!) screenwriters have contributed to the flick, though only four received onscreen credit.  The filming was plagued with problems, especially overseas.  Then there's the last-minute replacement of the expensive climactic sequence, which I will address shortly.

What we have here is the first megabudget zombie movie in the history of all film.  That alone makes it worth a look.  There are some highly impressive zombiegeddon vistas to be seen in "World War Z" (even if some of the zombies look like CG ragdolls).  For the first two-thirds of its running time, the movie speeds along at a brisk clip.  The cinematography is good, the music is decent, and Pitt draws us into the narrative with his bonafide movie star charisma and acting chops.  Gerry's been in "The Shit" before.  He's absolutely badass, the quick-thinking guy you want on your team when "The Shit" goes down.  There are a couple of tricks he uses that I will have to remember when the zombie apocalypse begins.

It's just too bad that none of the characters in the movie truly come to life.  They are mere sketches.  Gerry comes off the most developed because Pitt is such a likeable guy, but really, he's a bare-bones character.  He loves his family and will risk his life to save them, and he used to be a badass aid worker in dangerous parts of the world - end of sketch, that's it.  There's no spark.  The same goes for all of the supporting characters.  There are some potentially interesting characters in the movie portrayed by talented actors who never really coalesce.  They fade away into the background.

There are a couple of decent action sequences in the movie.  Director Marc Forster is the guy who made "Quantum of Solace", a James Bond movie which was good in its quiet moments but had some of the worst shot, most incoherent action scenes in action movie history.  Thankfully Forster seemed to have learned from his past experiences.  His action scene orchestrations in "World War Z" are still clumsy (until the CG guys take over), but not as maddening as QOS.  Forster is better at the quiet, moody stuff.

Which brings me to the climax.

-SPOILER ALERT-

The original climax of the movie was a highly expensive action sequence that took place in Moscow.  For some unknown reason, that climax was replaced with a newly-shot sequence in Wales, the one which now ends the film.  The end budget of the film?  About $200 million.  But I digress.

This new end sequence is a tense, intimate, scary little number, arguably the most effective part of the entire movie.  It's like something out of a low budget zombie flick, not a megabudget summer blockbuster.  It feels totally out of place, but not unwelcome.  Unfortunately, its smaller scale makes it feel like the scene that comes right before the climax, so when the movie suddenly ends it feels like a stop rather than a wrap up.  Then there's that awful montage and voiceover at the end ("the war continues, fight on. . ." barffff) which elicited a few "boos" at the screening I attended.  Interestingly enough, snippets of the original Moscow climax were used in the montage.

Here's my theory:  I think that the movie originally ended with the finding of the cure and the ending of the zombie war.  Paramount Pictures took a look at this and said, "No!  We want a franchise, dammit!"  So they had them shoot a new climax at the last minute, one where an advantage is discovered but the cure is not found and the war goes on.  Expect "World War Z Part 2" to arrive in theaters summer of 201X.

What else? 

Yeah, don't bother seeing it in 3D.  Between all of the rapid editing and dark cinematography, it's not worth it.  The plane scene is effective, but that's about it.

Ah yes, the PG-13 rating.  Zombie movie enthusiasts are up in arms about this.  I didn't mind so much.  It was distracting a couple of times when the filmmakers had to purposefully shoot around the "hard stuff", but it was still pretty brutal for a PG-13 movie.

There it is, a maddening mixed bag.  I hope there will be a faithful adaptation of the book one day (perhaps a cable TV miniseries) but until then we have. . . "The Walking Dead".  And the original book of course.  And about 100 other good zombie movies.  Then, once you're done with those, feel free to check out the "World War Z" movie.  Kurt Cobain versus zombies.

Man of Steel Review

Look!

It's a bird!

It's a plane!

No, it's a reboot!

Superman is back, courtesy of "Batman" shepherd Christopher Nolan and "Watchmen" director Zack Snyder, and while it's not a knockout super punch that we all want it to be, it's a pretty solid start.  If I were to compare it to another movie, I'd say that "Man of Steel" is at the "Batman Begins" level of quality.

I grew up with the Christopher Reeve Superman films of the '70s and '80s, so they will always be the measure against which all future Superman projects will be judged.  "Superman: The Movie" (1978) is an undisputed classic, despite some dumb story elements (the goofiness of Lex Luthor and his cronies, the annoying bit where Superman turns back time).  "Superman II" (1980) has been, and still is, my favorite Superman movie, despite the outdated special effects.  "Superman III" (1983) is okay.  Richard Pryor is fun to watch, but he pushes Christopher Reeve into the background a little too much, and the villains are once again unscary goofballs.  Let's not even discuss "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" (1987).  It's poop.

It took nearly twenty years for Supes to reemerge.  First came Richard Donner's director's cut of "Superman II".  I still prefer the original theatrical version, but there are some interesting changes in this new edition (except that Donner has Superman turning back time, again - sheesh).  Then came "Superman Returns" (2006).  Meant as a direct sequel to "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II", the Donner Cut, this Bryan Singer-directed flick is a mixed bag as well.  It's far too drawn out and lingers too much in the mire of nostalgia, but it was nice to see the Man of Steel back on the big screen.  It never clicked with new audiences, however.

Now Superman is back, more grittified and tormented than ever before in order to gel with Nolan's Batman trilogy (keep an eye out for a blink-and-you'll-miss-it nod to the Caped Crusader in "Man of Steel").  After a protracted opening sequence on Krypton (very cool), the movie shifts to a now grown-up Clark Kent as he wanders the Earth, searching his soul.  We experience his "origin story" in flashbacks, making "Man of Steel" almost feel like Part 2 of a franchise, which is good because I tire of comic book origin stories these days (they're all the same, really).  Eventually the shenanigans which occurred during the opening scenes on Krypton come back full circle, and Clark must embrace his destiny as Superman in order the save the world.

Henry Cavill is the new guy who plays Superman, and he does a fantastic job.  He doesn't ape Christopher Reeve's performance like Brandon Routh did in "Superman Returns", he makes it his own.  His supporting cast bolsters him up fairly well.  Amy Adams makes a tough modern-day Lois Lane, and Michael Shannon makes a great, menacing (if one-note) villain as General Zod.  Kudos also must go to the actors who play both sets of Clark Kent's (Kal-El's) parents - Russell Crowe, Antje Traue, Kevin Costner and Diane Lane.  Lane and Crowe practically steal the movie, acting-wise.

Technically, the movie shines.  Today's special effects allow the filmmakers to portray epic superhero clashes like never before, and they're pretty cool in "Man of Steel".  The downside is that they wear thin after so long.  After the umpteenth time a superhero/supervillain gets thrown through a building and kicks up a waterfall of cascading debris, you start to check your watch/phone.  But the flying effects are fantastic.  Han Zimmer's trademarked pounding chords provide a stellar sonic backdrop to the action and majesty.  Just don't compare it to the iconic score that John Williams provided for the Reeve movies.  'Cuz it doesn't.  So there.

I found the 3D work to be quite impressive in "Man of Steel".  It's well rendered at provides some breathtaking moments in the high-depth final action sequences.  I felt vertigo setting in a couple of times.  That's a good thing.

Then there are the changes.  One of the advantages of being a reboot is that you have the option of tearing up the furniture, so to speak.  "Man of Steel" does this more than once.  Besides convincingly fleshing out the Kryptonian back story and opening up the universe to many more possibilities, it also changes characters in fundamental ways.  For instance, Lois Lane knows that Clark Kent is really Superman right from the beginning, and that's a fantastic way to go.  Perry White is now a black guy (Lawrence Fishburne) and Jimmy Olsen now has breasts and is named Jenny (Rebecca Buller).  The only change I really didn't like concerned the death of Pa Kent (not really a spoiler - it always happens).  I know what the filmmakers were going for with that scene, but I didn't believe in it for one second.  There were so many ways for Clark to go in that moment and I think the filmmakers chose the complete wrong, unbelievable action.  But that's just my opinion.

Other stuff I didn't like -

The chemistry just wasn't there between Superman/Clark and Lois Lane.  I don't think it was the fault of either actor, the spark just wasn't happening.  Maybe that's something that will develop as the actors work together more often.  There's also the matter of the action style.  One thing I was looking forward to most in "Man of Steel" was seeing director Zack Snyder apply his distinctive action style to the world of Superman.  Unfortunately, Snyder chose to alter his style for this movie, instead choosing a more off-the-cuff cinema verite motif full of handheld camerawork, quick editing and random zooms.  I wish he wouldn't have done that.  I understand that they were going for a more realistic, down to earth approach with the action, but this is Superman, dang it!  He needs more majesty, less "guy in the trenches".

Despite some flaws, it's a good movie and I really look forward to the next one.  At any rate, it's far, far better than '"Superman Returns".  Think of it like this - "Batman Begins" was a good start but the sequel "The Dark Knight" was one of (if not the) best superhero movies ever made.  I can't wait to see "The Dark Knight" of the "Man of Steel"!

After Earth Review

I remember a time when the release of a new M. Night Shyamalan film was something to look forward to.  The same goes for anything starring Will Smith.  Well, my friends, those days have long since passed and we're left with naught but ashes and dust and a crappy summer sci-fi movie called "After Earth" (no relation to the far superior flick "Another Earth").

"How bad could it be?" I thought.  The reviews for this movie have been terrible but surely there must be something worthwhile to latch onto, right?  And that's where the problems lie.  There's much in this movie that I found to be quite good.  It's just that every single time I started to like "After Earth" something else would happen to make me dislike it again.  It's an incredibly frustrating experience.  I would rather a movie be a 100% terrible waste of time.  That way I could just wholly dismiss it and move on to the next cinematic experience without a trace of guilt on my shifty conscience.  Not so with "After Earth".  It annoys me to no end.

I get the feeling that this movie was spawned from the loins of greed, nepotism and Scientology.  Obviously, all movies come from greed and are intended to make money, but the involvement of Smith (who also produced and came up with the film's story) point towards the latter two.  Casting his son Jaden opposite himself is yet another clear attempt at forced starmaking - the movie is filled with signature scenes intended to showcase Jaden's range of acting talents.  That wouldn't be a problem if he displayed even the slightest hint of the charisma he had in "The Karate Kid" remake (a movie I loved), but he only inspires cringing here.  It just feels like the rich dad who's letting his son run his company at the expense of the employees.

Then there's the Scientology angle.  I must admit that I don't know much about this wacky "religion", just what I've seen on "South Park".  I get the feeling, however, that Scientology infuses much of the story of "After Earth" (the Smiths are die hard Scientologists).  Or maybe it's just because of the scene with the giant erupting volcano - it reminds me of the old television commercial for "Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard".  I detect a faint whiff of "recruitment tool" and it annoys me.

Then, after setting down a shaky foundation, the producers hired M. Night Shyamalan to direct.  Bad idea.  He hasn't exactly been at his "A-game" recently.  After starting out with the little-seen Rosie O'Donnell drama "Wide Awake" (a decent flick) he hit it big with "The Sixth Sense", a classic creepfest which ignited a wave of ghost movies that continues to this day.  Then came the ahead-of-its-time superhero redux "Unbreakable" (Shyamalan's best, in my opinion) followed by the great alien-laden thriller "Signs", featuring extra-terrestrials who get hurt by water.  Lots of people thought it was stupid of the aliens to come to water-heavy Earth to capture humans for food.  I just figured that their population was starving and we were the only option around, and left it at that.  If only they had replicators.

Things started to go wrong with "The Village", a decent movie, but it seemed like Shyamalan was buying into his own hype and was self-conciously copying his own filmmaking style rather than just "making the movie".  "Lady in the Water" was the moment when he truly flew off the rails.  Based on a bedtime story he used to tell to his kids, "Lady" was a silly, awkward disaster.  "The Happening", his first R-rated horror flick, is easily the worst movie he's made to date.  After that came "The Last Airbender", a big-budget fantasy adventure which pissed off fans of the original series ("Avatar: The Last Airbender") and bored everyone else to tears.  That same year he produced and thought up the story for the horror movie "Devil", which actually turned out to be decent.

Which brings us to "After Earth".  Let the awkwardness continue.  Like I mentioned before, every time I would begin to get intrigued by an interesting idea or piece of tech, or would admire a great CGI shot or creepy sequence, the movie would knock me back down with bad acting or awkward staging or an intrusive flashback or plain ol' disinterested filmmaking. This is Shyamalan's first movie shooting on digital video, and he makes the same missteps many directors do on their first time out.  Sometimes DV looks incredibly good, other time it looks incredibly artificial, like the guy who buys an HDTV and turns the sharpness all the way up because he thinks it looks better when, in fact, it makes everything look like fake crap.  And the musical score, usually a highlight of Shyamalan movies (even the bad ones), is completely forgettable here.

Even Will Smith is a non-prescence in this movie.  While I enjoyed his restrained, low-key, emotion-blocked performance at first, after awhile I just wanted to see him crack, to show any kind of emotion that would help further the relationship subplot of a father trying to reconnect with his son.  Nope.  The movie refuses to hit all but the most cursory story beats.  In the end, it felt unearned to me and we get multiple shots of Smith just trying to keep his eyes open.  Engaging stuff (sarcasm).  In fact, the father/son plot line is just a ruse - the movie ends up being a rite of passage movie where the untested young warrior must pass through the Dianetics volcano and defeat a multi-legged boss monster in order to become the badass warrior he was always meant to be, thereby earning daddy's respect, and is rewarded with an emotionless hug.  Is this Scientology?  I don't know.  It stinks, no matter what.

There could have been a good father/son sci-fi bonding movie here, if developed properly.  I'm not sold on the whole "in 1000 years, all life on Earth will evolve to kill humans".  Um, why would nature evolve to kill us when there hasn't been any humans on the planet for ten centuries?  Explain, please.  See, this movie is pissing me off the more I think about it.  "Star Trek: Into Darkness" was dumb, but it has heart and some well done action sequences.  Ditto for "Fast & Furious 6".  What does "After Earth" have?  It has a tagline which reads "Fear is a Choice".

No, fear is an actual physiological reaction.  Dumbasses.

I'm outta here.